B. Hussein Obama–War Criminal

Friday

Aug 30, 2013 at 11:05 AMAug 30, 2013 at 12:12 PM

If you aren’t interested in reading the five volume Compendium of War Law that is the standard bible on this topic, and if you finally realize that maybe Joel Brinkley is not the authority on this subject, I recommend a short, one volume work y Michael Byrnes called War Law. There is no doubt that if B.Hussein Obama launches a unilateral attack on another UN country, then he is committing a war crime. As the Compendium notes, Obama would then be subject to indictment in any UN member state in which he could be located. By way of example, he shows up for a G 20 summit, he is subject to indictment in that country.

Post Iraq in 2003 (and largely based upon a speech in the Senate by then-Senator B. Hussein Obama), the doctrine of a unilateral strike with regard to “national interest” is not oblique. A country may use force even when not attacked when “the very survival of the state would be at stake.” You’ll find that language on page 125 of War Law. For example, when S. Hussein announced he was creating nuclear weapons to use against Israel, Israel was within its rights to use unilateral force. But the requirement not only is one of “very survival of the state” and “imminence” are not enough. The evidence that the use of such weapons as a matter of state policy must be beyond a reasonable doubt. In short, not only must Assad be using chemical weapons, but he must also be admitting to using such weapons and he must be threatening to use these weapons against the United States, imminently, and in a manner in which “the very survival of the state would be at stake” a proposition with which Obama agreed in 2006.

It doesn’t matter whether Assad used chemical weapons. It only matters whether he was using them against the United States and in a manner in which there was no time for other options. As was noted on the BBC this morning, the British rep at the Security Counsel is now obligated to veto any UN resolution authorizing force. This is over. The UN won’t be doing anything. We’re not at threat. And I’ve love to see Obama stand trial in Spain for this farce.

Rob Meltzer

If you aren’t interested in reading the five volume Compendium of War Law that is the standard bible on this topic, and if you finally realize that maybe Joel Brinkley is not the authority on this subject, I recommend a short, one volume work y Michael Byrnes called War Law. There is no doubt that if B.Hussein Obama launches a unilateral attack on another UN country, then he is committing a war crime. As the Compendium notes, Obama would then be subject to indictment in any UN member state in which he could be located. By way of example, he shows up for a G 20 summit, he is subject to indictment in that country.

Post Iraq in 2003 (and largely based upon a speech in the Senate by then-Senator B. Hussein Obama), the doctrine of a unilateral strike with regard to “national interest” is not oblique. A country may use force even when not attacked when “the very survival of the state would be at stake.” You’ll find that language on page 125 of War Law. For example, when S. Hussein announced he was creating nuclear weapons to use against Israel, Israel was within its rights to use unilateral force. But the requirement not only is one of “very survival of the state” and “imminence” are not enough. The evidence that the use of such weapons as a matter of state policy must be beyond a reasonable doubt. In short, not only must Assad be using chemical weapons, but he must also be admitting to using such weapons and he must be threatening to use these weapons against the United States, imminently, and in a manner in which “the very survival of the state would be at stake” a proposition with which Obama agreed in 2006.

It doesn’t matter whether Assad used chemical weapons. It only matters whether he was using them against the United States and in a manner in which there was no time for other options. As was noted on the BBC this morning, the British rep at the Security Counsel is now obligated to veto any UN resolution authorizing force. This is over. The UN won’t be doing anything. We’re not at threat. And I’ve love to see Obama stand trial in Spain for this farce.

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.